Controversial law for level 2 passes

A controversial new coronavirus law has been hastily passed, despite coming under fire for allowing police to search homes without a warrant.

The Government rushed through the powerful legislation for alert level 2, but legal experts say the new enforcement law is better for the public than the extreme emergency powers used under lockdown.

There are now calls for the Government to take the unusual step of returning the law to Parliament, so it can again be scrutinised while it is being used.

The law, which passed 63-57, had to be hurried through the House as it was required for the enforcement of alert level 2 restrictions, such as social distancing, set to begin at 11.59pm yesterday.

After being introduced on Tuesday, the law faced a tirade of opposition as the National party ‘‘condemned’’ it as over-reach, and ACT said the Government was ignoring concerns for the basic rights and freedoms of New Zealanders. Both parties voted against the law at its third reading.

While the Government backed down on some of the ‘‘extraordinary powers’’, the intent of the bill broadly remained the same.

A two-year limit on the law was switched to three months, references to police being able to enter marae without a warrant were tweaked, and a requirement that only police operate roadblocks was removed. Communityled roadblocks have sprung up around the country during lockdown, to much controversy.

Attorney-General David Parker said the ‘‘bespoke’’ law would ensure restrictions on gatherings and physical distancing were still enforceable. There would be fewer restrictions under level 2 law than during lockdown, he said.

‘‘However, those remaining restrictions still need to be enforceable,’’ he said. ‘‘Under this act, police will only be able to enter private homes to break up gatherings that violate the rules on the numbers of people assembling.’’

Wellington lawyer Graeme Edgeler said the law contained additional safeguards, such as ensuring police reporting why they decided to use the powers.

‘‘But I’m not sure what they would be searching for in people’s homes. What are the level 2 rules they think people will breach?’’

Edgeler,who received a draft copy of the law from the Government, questioned whether a warrantless entry power was justifiable for a gathering in a home when rules had been broken..

‘‘I think that is where the concern should be,’’ he said. ‘‘However, I think it is good that there is a new law. This is better than continuing under powers that existed over the past seven weeks, which did not have safeguards and were more extreme.’’

Victoria University associate professor Nessa Lynch, who teaches criminal law, said the public should be wary of the very significant warrantless search power.

But the powers were not something new and were not unprecedented. The Search and Surveillance Act also provided police with such powers.

‘‘We have all been living under this search power for the past few weeks [under the Health Act]. It is now just in a specific piece of legislation.’’

Victoria University associate professor of law Dr Dean Knight said the bill moved powers away from the director-general of health and into the political sphere, which he said was a good thing.

‘‘But the problem is when you read the bill, it looks a lot more Draconian and ugly than it is.’’

‘‘We have all been living under this search power for the past few weeks; it is now just in a specific piece of legislation.’’ Law professor Nessa Lynch